What makes the essence of a game?

[bluestarultor]

So, trying this again, what makes the proverbial "atom" of a game per genre? How much can you strip out and still have it be a game of that genre? The idea here is kind of like when Yahtzee said if you have a good zombie movie, you could strip out the zombies and replace them with koalas and it would still be a zombie movie. How far can you boil a game down and still capture its essence?


Edit: I guess I'll start off. I, as indicated, think it depends on the genre. Just a few examples, but for an RPG, you need characters, a story, and some sort of atmosphere, be it focused on music or graphics or both. Combat, in my opinion, is completely optional, because the story is at the heart. Good combat helps, mind you, but you could theoretically do without it. On the other hand, others are nearly boiled down to basics as they are. Fighting games started modestly and could function modestly. All you need are two sprites of different colors that punch and kick and off you go. Anything on top of that these days boils down to pretty graphics and sound and more interesting ways to punch and kick. Nothing against fighting games, because I like them and there are some good ones, but they're still pretty simple.

[BloodyMage]

I don't think you can really say that a movie without zombies is a zombie movie, because even though films like 28 days later and REC that don't specifically refer to the monsters as zombies are still basing them the idea and the image of a zombie.

I suppose his point might be that things like atmosphere and the presentation of terror are more important than story or character, and it's quite similar to the Gothic literature genre in that sense, but on the other hand, I think a good horror movie is one that doesn't have to sacrifice character and story to maintain atmosphere and horror.

In the same sense, I think that certain genre's of games have specifics, like horror games will rely on atmosphere as much as horror films, but a good game should be one that can honour the legacy of the genre without sacrificing other elements, and you can take away all those elements, but then the game isn't in the same genre any more. Horror games rely on atmosphere as much as a rpg should rely on engaging characters. The whole point of the former is to induce terror, as much as being able to 'role play' as these characters is the whole point of the latter.

[Amake]

I guess if you took everything out of a platformer and reduced it to its basic concept, you'd have a Pong block running on a straight line and jumping over holes and blocks. I'd prefer to call that game the genre itself instead of being of that genre.

And it would be boring as skull-boring exploding worms.

And we are forced to conclude genres, on a fundamental level, suck.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

for an RPG, you need characters, a story, and some sort of atmosphere, be it focused on music or graphics or both. Combat, in my opinion, is completely optional, because the story is at the heart.

They have those.

They aren't RPGs though.

They call them 'adventure' games.

I hear Monkey Island was a good one.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

I don't think there is any one thing that makes a good game. Its how the various elements combine. Look at Loco Roco. Practically zero story, very simplistic game play, but has good music, decent graphics & is really cute.

Other games have an involved story & a lot of interactive bits.

I'd say, that what makes a good game is how all its elements come together & its ability to hold the attention of the player. How you do that, depends on the type of game you make.

SWB

[Kim]

I don't think I could stand RPGs without combat. You really need things that break the game up. Unless the game is very short, a game will suffer from being pure story.

[Bells]

This is complex math. No doubt.

It's not "just" the right elements and how they combine. It's also about the timing of each element in the game itself : what to do, where, how much and why.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Originally Posted by NonCon

I don't think I could stand RPGs without combat. You really need things that break the game up. Unless the game is very short, a game will suffer from being pure story.

Because that wouldn't really be something I'd call a game anymore. More like an interactive novel. Which is fine for me since I play most jRPGs solely for the story anyway. However, I do think the combat gives the epic confrontation with the evil wizard from the future that extra something. If it's done right.

[Kim]

Mother, Earthbound, and Mother 3 wouldn't be as impressive as they are without the combat, and I hate the first Mother game.

[bluestarultor]

I suppose you guys are right. RPGs do need combat to break them up. Maybe not fancy combat, but something.